Leadership in Iran works for Bilderberg group, peace is not on their agenda.

Yes, just what we need, for China to develop further political strength in the Middle East.

I get the impression that Iran has been taking great leaps backwards the last few years. It is a pity our foreign policy doesn't allow for a more nuanced attempt to influence that society towards greater liberalism.

But I have to say that statements like this from the President of Iran really muck up efforts of both sides to be responsible in trying to generate stability and fairness in an agreement, maintain security, and to work towards a very different environment in the Middle East.

What makes you think that Iran sees "generating stability and fairness in an agreement" is in its best interests at this point? As long as there are 100,000 plus US troops in a neighboring country, "stability" is the last thing that Iran would want, because it would free up those troops to realize the neocon wet-dream of an invasion of Iran.

Iran is "working toward a very different environment in the Middle East" --- an environment that does not include US occupation forces in Iraq (or Iran, or Syria...or anywhere.) If there is some 'strategic' intention in his statement (and I personally think he was just running off at the mouth) its in Iran's efforts to consolidate its influence by exploiting and leveraging the tremendous anti-Americanism within the Islamic world by provoking Israel.

elaborate a little on that Bildeberg connection jcl. What's their agenda for Iran in your opinion?

Lukasiak has it right again, as might be expected.

I don't think it's running off at the mouth. It's political rhetoric somewhat like Bush's promises that we'll get Osama.

Just ask yourself: is it true that "there was 'no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world.'"?

Not hardly.

It sounds like raw meat for the rubes, while Iran deals with its real problem: a threatened attack by the United States.

The new president looks to me to be extremely smart and practical. That he should use rabid anti-Israeli rhetoric is no more surprising than that the friends of Jeff Gannon in this Administration should use anti-gay rhetoric: their audience demands it.

p.lukasiak >"If there is some 'strategic' intention in his statement..."

You can bet there IS

The strategic goal is "The Perfect Caliphate" as articulated by Ben Laden

These folks are as "evil" in their own way as are the current occupants of the White House

Building towards "The Perfect War"

Wake up !

"...the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion...but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington

The strategic goal is "The Perfect Caliphate" as articulated by Ben Laden

should someone explain to this person that bin Laden and the Shiites have significant theocratic differences that include the whole "Perfect Caliphate" thing?

To reduce it to its simplest form --- Sunnis spent the last 1000 years--until the end of the Ottoman Empire--- like the Roman Catholics, being overseen by a centralized religious authority (the Caliphate.) The Caliphate was abolished at the end of WWI, and since that time lots of Sunnis have wanted it back.

But the Shiites never recognized the legitimacy of that Caliphate during that 1000 year period. And if bin Laden ever gets his way, and restores the Caliphate, the Shiites still won't recognize it as legitimate.

China does have a pretty strong interest in keeping the situation between the U.S./Israel and Iran from boiling over, particularly since Sinopec inked a deal with Iran last year for the development of the Yadavaran oilfield, which will be China's largest overseas oil project once it gets going. They've also been rumored to be interested in taking over the Japanese stake in the Azadegan field if the U.S. successfully pressure them to back out.

I don't want to suggest direct causation, but our adventure in Iraq certainly influenced what kind of person was elected president in Iran. Iranian society had taken small, tentative steps towards a more liberal dynamic, but our invasion made everyone in Iran retreat. Opposition to the Iranian mullahs is not the same as support for the US or acceptance of the Israeli state, and even if Iraq ends up relatively more liberal than Iran with more "freedom", it won't necessarily impact Iran. Iraq will always be seen as a US puppet and, as a result, corrupted.

Ahmadinejad can take the most extreme rhetoric public position he wants, given the gutting of the US soft power infrastructure, the extreme over extension of our miltary force, and the incredibly weak internals of our economy. He knows when push comes to shove everyone else in the world who is against US Hegemony will be supporting him overtly or covertly. Swinging at the bee hive is the only option Team Bush has given the rest of the world.

Our extremism without respect for international rules encourages the same in others. This is just the first of much international reckoning from the bill owed to Team Bush for successfully destroying our international crediblity and reputation.

I have no language skills in Iranian.

Could someone with these skills confirm what Ahmadinejad said?

How do we know this is not from Cheney?

Have Iran say that again. Ask them for clarification. Bring them before the Security Council and have them either renounce it, or repeat it. If they renounce, good for them. If they repeat, condemn them, and at the first opportune time bomb their nuclear facilities, and repeat when necessary. No bullshit. Everybody will know why they got theirs. They are going to wipe a country off the face of the map, are they; famous last words.

Bush has *greatly* empowered Iran with the empowering of the SCIRI and the al-Dawa, both of which have been based in Iran for the last 20 years, both of whose leaders were exiled in Iran for the last 20 years.

By empowering them, Bush has put Israel in far greater jeopardy.

Ahmadinejad must love what Bush has done to the region.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Islamic Republic

Where's the outrage in the USA?

"Irresponsible" is the worst thing you can say about such an evil and genocidal speech?

This kind of rhetoric is daily fare in the Palestinian Authority, in Saudi mosques, as well as most other places in the Middle East. This attitude, not Israeli "occupation" is why it is impossible to have peace.

Hey Steverino!

Let's see:

1) helped torture defenseless Americans during hostage crisis in 1979

Sometimes, all you need is one piece of evidence to come to the "completely irreconcilable" judgement.

Using my line of reasoning, though, what does that make our current executive branch?

Love your website! You are quickly becoming my main Fitzmas newsource.

Bilderberg group wants a huge middle east war, arabs against arabs, arabs against Jews. Two ops accomplished here, depopulation and eventual hegemony of world elite over entire area, new world capital established. Long term goal of course, but you can see the maneuvering.

What kind of response from Iran would be appropriate for being called an "axis of evil"??

But we seem to have a higher national security/diplomatic priority now- Syria, which
is at best a tertiary threat to anyone.

Was "shock and awe" and all its collateral damage of innocents who have been wiped off this universe already, the action of a responsible pResident and Prime Minister?

Which is more "responsible"?

A threat or a completed action?

Just a thought of double standards.

"It sounds like raw meat for the rubes, while Iran deals with its real problem: a threatened attack by the United States."

Iran's real problem is not a threatened attack by the U.S. but rather a highly fractured internal power structure, and the rise of a disaffected youth generation with no interest in Islamic hegemony (see: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18390).

Ahmadinejad's statement might well have had the double purpose of providing "raw meat for the rubes," and attempting to extend the country's influence in the region by threatening any country that is thinking of establishing relations with Israel.

Accomplishing both these goals would have the effect of bolstering Ahmadinejad's party's influence within the multi-sectored Iranian political space. In other words, intimidating neighbors successfully, would have the effect of intimidating political competitors within the country. All politics are local.

A few points:

1. Iran is no threat to Israel. Iran has no Nuclear weapons and does not have the capability to build them and probably never will. On the other hand, Israel has 200 nuclear warheads.

2. Ahmadinejad's commenst are entirely political in nature. He is trying to win "hearts and minds" of radical Arabs.

3. In the 80s, Khomeini called for Israel to be wiped off the map. But in reality Israel and Iran were engaged in dirty dealings. Iran purchased weapons and spare parts from Israel (therefore indirectly helping to fund Israel's occupation of Palestine).

4. The Bush administration has caused such a mess, that statements like this as well as nationalism and fundamentalism are on the rise.

5. Any comparison between the Shias and Osama is ridiculous - something one would read in the NY Post or hear on FOX.

6. The real problem in Iran is human rights and not the so-called "nuclear technology."

7. Most Iranians oppose the Islamic Republic, but almost all of them agree that Iran is entitled, under international law, to nuclear technology.

8. If you're worried about nuclear weapons, direct your attention at Pakistan - an unstable country with nuclear weapons that can fall into the hands of Taliban at any moment. But Mr. Bush has not only stayed away from that topic, but as early as last year approved the sale of military aircraft capable of carrying nukes, to Pakistan.

9. If we want a world free of nukes, we must be fair and impartial. Therefore, if Iran can't have it, neither should Israel.

jcl,think they are going for Syria or Iran next? I know they changed the schedule from September 9th to mid August and now who knows when due to the Larouche people getting leaks on "Nuclear August" and Jones warning about the drills, it seem's to be a little too quiet now and I wouldn't rule out terror by the end of the year, especially with the boat sinking. Love some info.

probably Syria - the smaller fish

Bilderberg can't afford nuclear incidents, they risk losing power for good. Fear is the op. Syria is next, they are a target, not Iran. Iran is necessary boogie man at the moment.

Is it just me or is this kind of an over reaction? How is this really different than Khrushchev saying "we will bury you" or any number of other over the top comments by leaders of countries antagonistic countries towards each other. Really he didn't even say that Iran would wipe Israel of the map he said the "new wave [of attacks] in Palestine" would do it. Killing a handful of people at a time in terrorist attacks while deplorable is hardly going to wipe them off the map.

Now if he said Iran would share nuclear material with militant Palestinians, then we'd have a reason to be concerned. But this sounds like a over the top red meat for the radicals speech. Undiplomatic and dumb, but not a cause for concern or calling anyone before the UN. *sheesh*

"rabid anti-Israeli rhetoric"

seems that anytime someone even criticizes Israel they are portrayed as rabid and anti-Semite.

Well, Israel is to Palestine as Hitler is to Jews. Their agents spy on us. They are the recipients of most of the US foreign aid. They kill innocents daily, and their massacres have no end in sight. Why would anyone not be against them?

The entire history of Israel has disgusted me, so when I hear Iran's president condemn them, I agree in principle, because no one has the right to kill without incurring the penalty of retribution. I'm sure that in his mind, rhetorically or not, Iran would be better off if Israel had never existed. Perhaps it is an unrealistic expectation, but it certainly is a reasonable response to Israel's terror. Even I wish that Israel had never existed, so that Palestine could have flourished and Yasser Arafat may have had a more normal life.

You would think that, after experiencing their holocaust, they would be anxious to get along with their neighbors wherever they went to live. Instead, we find them emulating Adolf & Company. If all they get is ill wishes now, they should be anxious to make amends with their neighbors, including demolishing that stupid wall, rebuilding Palestine and other things that show their gratitude for being allowed to live among those people.

As long as they follow the path they travel now, they are doomed to defeat. It may come a thousand years from now, but there will never be peace with their neighbors during any one of those years otherwise.

Iran's president is indeed a Bildeberger. Confirmed. Should have known, no Iranian politician (except maybe some of the old guard Mullah wingnuts) would feed the neocon spin machine such a juicy tidbit.

Iran threatens Israel?

Ho hum...like Israel hasn't been threatening to bomb Iran ...and Syria...every week for how long now?...and when not threatening to do it themselves, telling the US they should do it.

Pot calling kettle black. If neither side can get over their primitive tribalism, arm them equally and may the most determined win. I am fed up with this Hatfield and McCoy land feud.

"Iran has no Nuclear weapons and does not have the capability to build them and probably never will."
.............................................
You are dead wrong, Iran is building a nuclear arsenal as we speak and yes that makes it a threat to Israel as well as the rest of the region and world.
---------------------------------------------
"Therefore, if Iran can't have it, neither should Israel."
..........................
Another foolish ignorant remark that makes a moral equivalence between a western-style free, democratic Israel and a fanatical islamic dictatorship which sponsors terrorism. That vast difference between the countries makes it not only okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but neccessary, given the genocidal tendencies of its enemies, while Iran MUST be stopped from obtaining nukes. There should be NO evenhandedness in the way we treat Israel and Iran because they are not equivalent.

Some of the posts here show the willful blindness, inverted reality and moral bankrupcy of the modern day left, especially regarding the Middle East.

"rabid anti-Israeli rhetoric"

seems that anytime someone even criticizes Israel they are portrayed as rabid and anti-Semite."
..........................................
YOU are the one that used the term anti-Semite. The quote you posted doesn't accuse anyone of anti-Semitism. I find it interesting that you would see an accusation of anti-Semitism in that quote. I wonder why?

This guy is further proof that religious dogma has no business in government.

Laura -

"western-style free, democratic Israel"

Hardly. If you know anything about Israel, You you would know that 1/3 of its population (Arab-Israelis) do not enjoy the same rights as the Jews. The Jewis Israeli from Baltimore or the Ukraine has more rights than the Arab who has been there for thousands of years. For example, Arabs cannot serve in the Israeli Army. In Israel, it is almost impossible to find a decent job w/o serving in the military first. But you don't have to be an Arab to suffer in Israel. Non-European Jews do not have the same living standards in Israel as Jews of European heritage.
Laura - please put down the bag of potato chips and the beer and pick up a book.

Here's another fact. Iran has a theocratic, irrational, brutal government. No doubt. But Iran has not initiate an attack on another country - let's see - in a few hundred years (Iran-Iraq war was started by Hussein). Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Israel. In its short history, Israel has been responsible for - well, you know. If you don't, you must live on another planet.

But this does not mean that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.

The ideal solution is not a two state one. In my opinion, the ideal solution is one democratic state where Arabs and Jews can live side by side. Call it Israel, Palestine or Kalamazoo... But the Israelis are afraid of this solution because there would be more Arabs than Jews and in a truly democratic state, the Arabs would get their way. God forbid!

About the nuclear situation. My dear Laura - it's not about Israel or Iran. Don't get crazy. If the real aim is nuclear non-proliferation, then international law has to apply equally to all nations. We cannot say country A can have 200 nuke warheads because in that country everyone can vote - and country B cannot have nukes because its president is an a#$hole.

That's all for now.

Laura, what is an anti-israeli but an anti-semite? And, I'm not nobody. I used the term. It's an equivalence, or aren't you familiar with them?

You know, I love the way you decide that an entire region of the world is undeserving of a defense equal to the force being exerted against it, simply because you don't like what you've read and heard and believe about their leaders. From your response, I get the feeling that you'd be just fine if Israel nuked Iran, Iraq & Syria over Halloween weekend. Millions of people dead because you've condemned their lives to the fate of their "fanatical Islamic dictatorship".

Have you ever stopped to consider that Israel does not have the right to threaten its neighbors? Have you ever, maybe just as a devil's advocate, considered that the new kid on the block doesn't have the right to dictate to it's neighbors what the law is, that maybe, just maybe, it's neighbors should be the ones dictating to it? That it's neighbors have a right to be angry because of it's actions against them?

If some ignorant bastard moved into your neighborhood and came by to appropriate your front lawn, would you then want that same thug to have the police enforce his appropriation?

Would you be mad if that was the case? Or would you welcome this usurper to take whatever he wanted from the rest of your property, kill your children as they traverse your neighborhood to go to school, lock your husband, brothers and nephews up for belonging to the terrorist groups that, before this butthead moved in, were the Kiwanis & Elk lodges, or soccer clubs, or just groups of guys that hung out together? Or would you eagerly give him your life's savings and contract the rest of your life's work to him for a below-subsistence wage?

You need to tone your name calling down, and consider how you would respond to the actions of those you seem so eager to support if those actions were expressed against you. And you'd profit greatly from considering what those responses would look like to outsiders who would be supporting those actions against you.

For you to think that it is fair for one party in any conflict to be able to obliterate the other party is just irresponsible. What would you say to the survivors, few though they be?

Why would you want Hiroshima and Nagasaki to happen all over again? How would you feel if those events happened where you live? If your new ignorant bastard decided to obliterate yoour neighborhood?

"Israel is to Palestine as Hitler is to the Jews."

In case anyone is wondering whether this is anti-Semitism: Yes, it is.

The West, through colonialism, slavery, racism, has acted with horribly cruelty throughout the last few hundred years. Now we are waking up to this. How to deal with the pain? How to live with the fact that we are the beneficiaries of these crimes? Project the sin onto those upon whom the West has projected sin for the past two millenia.

Jerome, I've tried that argument before, and it simply does not work.

The problem is that bigots like Laura were raised to believe that some humans are more human, more deserving, more special, than others.

The whole "shoe on the other foot" argument does not work with them because they frankly do not view other people as fully human.

lol @ larry, who apparently does not see the irony in cloaking himself in the clothes of a victim to avoid taking responsibility for his own victimizing.

Those of us who see ourselves as human rather than as members of one religious/ethnic/social clique or another are rather beyond such psycho games.

Shed your camoflage and join us.

"For example, Arabs cannot serve in the Israeli Army. "

Arabs can, and do serve in the Israeli Army. In fact, some of the most egregious examples of aggressive behavior toward Palestinians in the occupied territories were actually carried out by members of the Border Patrol who were, in fact, Arab. Many desert trackers in the Israeli army are Bedouin, and there are members of many other Arab minorities who serve in the Israeli military.

This does not mean that there is not anti-Arab discrimination and other social and political problems, but at least the issues are discussed widely in the domestic Israeli press, and are often brought up in parliament by Arab parliament members.

A discussion of the deep-seated problems in the area is always welcome, but at least try to get the basic facts right.

You know, I'm painfully aware of the fact that as an American, I live on land stolen from people we killed. That Israel is built on land taken from another people.

But, there are millions of Israelis living there now, and they're not actually planning on going anywhere. So any plan that calls for wiping Israel off the map -- now, or in a thousand years, as your friend Gaskins predicts -- isn't a plan. It's a wish, and a malevolent one.

And the question for a Jew -- or, I think, any fair-minded person -- is, why the disproportionate hate? Gaskins is "disgusted." This is clearly an enormous emotional issue for him. Yet even since the Holocaust there have been genocides in Cambodia, in Rwanda, mass killings of the Kurds, in East Timor, in Bosnia and Kosovo, in Sudan. It's going on right now. Are there death camps in the West Bank? Crematoria? Mass executions? No. But Israel is, nevertheless, equated with a genocidal maniac. This in the face of actual genocide.

So, yowza, I'll call it what it is: anti-Semitism. That's not pleading victimhood. That's refusing to be a victim, refusing to be silent in the face of slander. And if the Jews learned one thing, it's that being a victim carries no special moral benefit.

I don't say this for your benefit, or his. But to make sure everyone else reading this understands how truly repugnant, how hurtful, and purposefully so, it is to Jews to equate Israel with the Nazis, or the plight of the Palestinians with the Holocaust. You might as well call me a filthy kike.

Who is really threatening whom with being "wiped out"??? Israel has the nukes, Iran has hot air. Who is the real threatened party?

It's Anti Semitism because people like you say that any criticism of Jews and/or Israel is Anti Semitism, Birnbaum. In the rest of the world, it is criticism.

Why don't you address the other solution I proposed, Larry? Why don't you consider what life would be like if Israel made a real effort to get along with their neighbors?

Nobody really cares about how many people live there now. The situation will be the same, and people will continue to express their "displeasure" with Israel until Israel starts treating the people that gave up their homes and lives so that it may exist.

Nobody likes bullies, and when they get beat down, all those hangers on will disappear, just like they always do.

yowza: YOWZA!

I think you all have forgotten that the one true God gave all that land to the Israelites and now they are evicting those who are squatting on The Land given them by the one true God. Got it! End of discussion.

And "Israel is to Palestine" is NOT "as Hitler is to the Jews." "Israel is to Palestine" as the White European Americans were to the Native American Indians. God gave the American continent to another of his chosen peoples so that his kingdom on earth might overcome filthy heathens and bring them unto the one true God.

God wills it.

Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

Seems like God chose you to be the court jester, Paul.

Jerome, if you don't like the names Laura used how about these? You are an appallingly ignorant hypocritical liar. You ask Larry to respond to your proposals. What proposals? Tearing down the wall? Rebuild Palestine? How? Any Israeli who entered the West Bank to try and help with any kind of rebuilding would just be killed by Hamas. These groups did not exist before Israel in any form, so the comments about them being social clubs is meaningless claptrap that just underlines the fact of your ignorance. The only goal of Hamas in terms of Israel is its complete destruction and killing the Jewish populace. Explain to me how you make peace with that kind of inflexible goal. The truth is that there is NOTHING that Israel could do to lessen the desire of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to destroy them completely.

The immediate reaction to the state of Israel being established was for its neighbors to attack it in an attempt to destroy it utterly. They attacked again with the same goal. Then they did it again. They continue to sponsor people who commit murderous acts against civilians.

That having been said, the Israelis also continue to screw up big time. They do stupid, oppressive things to Palestinians that should be treated as crimes. These heinous actions do nothing to help their cause. But the murderers you support do nothing to solve anything. They just provide justifications to Israel's far right for their unjust actions.

Those who have posted that Iran not only does not currently have nuclear weapons but will not acquire them also display an absolutely amazing level of ignorance.

To those still following this: I of course didn't say that criticism of Israel (or even Jews) or of its policies is anti-Semitism. I said that comparing Israel to Hitler is hate speech. And that the level of emotion around this issue in the face of everything else that is going on in the world is a bit, well, hard to understand. Over the top. What could be the reason? Well I guess we must have invited it upon ourselves. So it has ever been with anti-Semites.

And yowza seems pretty cavalier about the Israelis. As he put it, "nobody cares about [them]." Fortunately they're not dependent upon the good wishes of humanists like yowza and Gaskins.

It's always painful to hear hate speech, but especially garbed as humanitarianism. I'm done.

Make that Gaskins in the second paragraph above. Apologies to yowza. You are an enabler and an excuser but didn't yourself utter hate speech.

abhinava asks, "Where's the outrage in the USA?"

Well, I'm at about triple quota, as are most of the people I know. But a majority of people think Iraq was a mistake and that Bush is a bad president. You'd never know it by listening to CNN.

__________________________

Dan J., I disagree that fear of invasion is not Iran's central problem. There are plenty of fissures within Iran, sure. Ethnic, religious, economic, and demographic. The only serious one is with the Kurds. The fissures in the United States are, in my opinion, more serious. People who have not been under sustained threat underestimate what it does to a nation. What sustained threat does is that it suppresses any democratic tendencies, strengthens dictators and tyrants, and makes nations more prone to aggressive and destructive behavior.

Iran gains essentially nothing in regional prestige by throwing yet another log on the bonfire of hatred of Israel. It can't threaten any other country because it is too absorbed with the task of repelling invasion. And it has far more direct methods of intimidating internal dissenters. If you're relying on the New York Times for any reporting, but especially for reporting of the Middle East, I'd suggest reading more widely.

____________________________

Laura, your assessment of Iran's nuclear capability is in direct contradiction to what international monitors say. People imagine that building a nuclear weapon is something you do in your garage and that it's easy to conceal. It is not.

Larry: there you go again, expecting the world to see what you don't like to hear as a crime.

I don't accept your labels for my behavior. I can compare what I feel is relevant to any thing else I feel is relevant. You cannot intimidate me or shut me up by trying to change the meaning of what I say.

I compared the Israelis to Hitler's actions because the Israeli's actions are exterminating Palestine and it's citizens. It's obvious to me that you hate to have this comparison made, but your hatred of the truth certainly doesn't make my comparison hateful.

As for the level of emotion surrounding the issues of the Middle East: do you expect a person who isn't involved in the problems there, who learns about the problems from all sides of the issues, to just sit quietly by while people like you continuously distort these issues to seem as victims while you victimize others? Do you really expect the emotions that well up, everytime I hear about another child being killed, another funeral, another person deciding that life sucks so much and they're so hopeless that they'd rather kill themselves than continue to live in that condition, to just go away with time? Do you expect me to just accept the propaganda spewed daily to mask the slow motion genocide?

Well, too damned bad.

Call it hate speech all you want. I will continue to speak it, I will continue to write it, and I will continue to feel it. People who know me are confident in their assessment of my character, and watching you try to manipulate my expressions is amusing, like watching an ant try to move a ball bearing.

I know that I will not influence you to see the people of the world as one family. However, I can't let people like you continue to pretend to speak for every US citizen. There are plenty of us that see the same facts and disagree with your assessments. I will continue to express a different view, so that other people will have more than your images to consider.

Jim S, you're too busy trying to look cool for me to take seriously.

Charles, couldn't the Iranian president's speech be a warning to Israel not float any covert ops aimed at sabotaging their nuclear projects? Perhaps he was remembering their prior airstrike that killed the reactor before...

Plus, he's got Russian and Chinese involvement in his current and future reactor projects, as well as oil & gas development. I don't think they'd take too kindly to Israel destroying their investments, and they may have catalyzed his speech as well.

"Iran gains essentially nothing in regional prestige by throwing yet another log on the bonfire of hatred of Israel. It can't threaten any other country because it is too absorbed with the task of repelling invasion. And it has far more direct methods of intimidating internal dissenters. If you're relying on the New York Times for any reporting, but especially for reporting of the Middle East, I'd suggest reading more widely."

Not the New York Times, Charles, but the New York Review of Books; a very different matter. And I personally have many acquaintances from the region and the country whose stories convince me of the article's accuracy.

Look, animosities and enmity are widespread in the region, even without Israel. But Iran clearly feels that it stands to benefit regionally by throwing its weight around. Without getting into the "blame game", I think it's highly likely that were Iran to avoid subsidizing and assisting anti-Israeli terrorist groups, not only on Israel's borders but in other parts of the world as well (as in the case of Argentina--twice) the country would largely be invisible and irrelevant to the Israelis, who have more pressing and immediate concerns, think of them what you may.

You can argue that Iran's motivation is religious, if you were to take Ahmedinejad's statements literally. But I'm convinced that the comments are a reflection of Iran's own realpolitik calculations in the region. They are clearly intent on getting nuclear weapons, and have just as clearly given up on getting support or acquiescence from Western Europe on this, so they probably feel they have nothing to lose--and much to gain--by waving the nuclear sword. Identifying Israel as their main enemy helps them create a zone of regional influence, economically and militarily enforced; if not now then certainly in the future.

Iran does have legitimate self-defense concerns, even leaving the U.S. and Israel out of the equation; it would be foolish to pretend they don't. As we get closer to a period of oil shortages and competition for water and other natural resources in the region they will clearly need a strong defensive posture, looking at the years ahead, The irony is that they could accomplish so much more by forging regional and global alliances, were they not blindsided by this irrational ideology of hatred.

Whatever real or perceived external pressures they feel, Iran will need clear-headed, rational leadership (democratic or not) to deal with the challenges of the years ahead, and statements such as we've heard today are a sign that this kind of leadership is still absent.

I certainly don't disagree that sustained threat makes nations more prone to aggressive and destructive behavior, however.

The Iranian President was making the usual last day of Ramadan anti-zionist speech re-iterating what has been Iranian policy since the revolution and probably since the Shah.

Since when has Israel been recognised by any in the ME apart from sell out puppets like Anwar Sadat and his acolytes?

Israel has been 'created' out of stolen land. The Palestinian leadership got tricked into accepting what they thought was a fait accompli but few Palestinians I know feel that way and maybe all the countries that are forcing this on Palestine, who happen to have caused the problem with their anti jewish racism should lift their game, take the diaspora back and let Palestinians have their country back.

The Palestinian resistance in defence of their nation could never begin to approach the deliberate murder of Jews by the Europeans. The US turned a blind eye to it until it was done.

Now they expect the Palestinians to provide their country to people who have been living elsewhere for millenia. If anyone points this out European and US anti semitism swings into action to make the Palestinians accept what they would not.

It's a storm in a teacup anyhow.
It's all being beaten up as a distraction so that people won't notice that it's OK to out CIA agents if you're doing so to keep a war on the bubble.

But what about the efforts of Israel to get Iran wiped off the map (or at least the current administration of the country and a business and Israel friendly one installed)?

Why doesn't anyone talk about that?

Or how about Israel's success in getting a pro-business pro Israel administration installed in Iraq?

That sounds like a good topic of discussion.

Sorry. Now that I've read more than the first couple of comments, I see that some commenters have mentioned Israel's animosity to most of the ME.

Plus some have noted that the Iranian president's message was more to his own people and compared it with Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech.

Well said, folks.